If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I like reading articles that are truthful and make sense! WW for prez!Walter Williams

Democracy and majority rule give an aura of legitimacy to acts that would otherwise be deemed tyranny. Think about it. How many decisions in our day-to-day lives would we like to be made through majority rule or the democratic process? How about the decision whether you should watch a football game on television or "Law and Order"? What about whether you drive a Chevrolet or a Ford, or whether your Easter dinner is turkey or ham? Were such decisions made in the political arena, most of us would deem it tyranny. Why isn't it also tyranny for the democratic process to mandate what type of light bulbs we use, how many gallons of water to flush toilets or whether money should be taken out of our paycheck for retirement?

The founders of our nation held a deep abhorrence for democracy and majority rule. In Federalist Paper No. 10, James Madison wrote, "Measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority." John Adams predicted, "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." Our founders intended for us to have a republican form of limited government where the protection of individual God-given rights was the primary job of government.

snip....

The Constitution's Article V empowers two-thirds of state legislatures to call for a constitutional convention to propose amendments that become law when ratified by three-fourths of state legislatures. I used to be for this option as a means of enacting a spending limitation amendment to the Constitution but have since reconsidered. Unlike the 1787 convention attended by men of high stature such as James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and John Adams, today's attendees would be moral midgets: the likes of Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Olympia Snowe and Nancy Pelosi

Are you (or this op-ed) saying that this country needs to transition from a republic to a true democracy? Has a true democracy ever worked? (population bigger than a club or small town)

We do have a democratic election process by which the majority make choices. And we have to live with those choices for a certain period of time, 2-4 years. Then we get to evaluate and make new choices.

Just trying to understand where you're coming from. I guess to some right now it feels like an unfair majority has taken over.

Are you (or this op-ed) saying that this country needs to transition from a republic to a true democracy? Has a true democracy ever worked? (population bigger than a club or small town)

We do have a democratic election process by which the majority make choices. And we have to live with those choices for a certain period of time, 2-4 years. Then we get to evaluate and make new choices.

Just trying to understand where you're coming from. I guess to some right now it feels like an unfair majority has taken over.

The founders of our nation held a deep abhorrence for democracy and majority rule.

We are a Republic that is transforming into the founding fathers biggest nitemare! We are a nation of laws, but not any more. I agree with Dr. Williams, read the whole article and you will see where i'm coming from.

We are a Republic that is transforming into the founding fathers biggest nitemare! We are a nation of laws, but not any more. I agree with Dr. Williams, read the whole article and you will see where i'm coming from.

I did read the article. That's where he's coming from. I get that you agree with the article but I'd like to know where you're coming from, specifically, from your own experience and pov. Isn't that what forum is supposed to be all about? Any monkey can copy/paste something. Megimoo's got it down to a science.

I'm just trying to get a better insight into what you're thinking--why this article spoke to you.

I did read the article. That's where he's coming from. I get that you agree with the article but I'd like to know where you're coming from, specifically, from your own experience and pov. Isn't that what forum is supposed to be all about? Any monkey can copy/paste something. Megimoo's got it down to a science.

I'm just trying to get a better insight into what you're thinking--why this article spoke to you.I always bring WW articles here, they all make sense and are written in a style that anyone can grasp.

How is the Republic currently transforming into something else?Do you know the difference in a Republic and a democracy? We were a Nation of laws and now we are becoming a nation of mob rules and legislating from the bench. The powers of the federal goverment are defined from way back, politicians can and will legislate to #1 keep themselves in power, and intrude in our lives as much as they can.

How are we no longer a nation of laws?

Just to name one thing, I would mention illeagle immigrants, enough people(mob) put up a snit about ICE raids and deportation and we conveniently stop enforcing our laws.
A law should be meted out without prejudice.

Just to name one thing, I would mention illeagle immigrants, enough people(mob) put up a snit about ICE raids and deportation and we conveniently stop enforcing our laws.
A law should be meted out without prejudice.

I agree with what your saying re: immigration, however there are certain circumstances that mitigate an approach. We can't deport naturalized citizens i.e. children born in the U.S. -- That's minor, but important.

What if they enacted tougher laws for businesses and invigilators who employ undocumented workers?

Do you know the difference in a Republic and a democracy? We were a Nation of laws and now we are becoming a nation of mob rules and legislating from the bench. The powers of the federal government are defined from way back, politicians can and will legislate to #1 keep themselves in power, and intrude in our lives as much as they can.

Re: the difference between a Republic and Democracy. I ask that very question all the time.

You say we're becoming a nation of Mob rules; How so?

Re: 'legislating from the bench' -- in a politically charged environment, almost any decision can be seen as activist. When pundits accuse a judge of being an activist, they seem to dismiss the decision by that judge on its political implication and usually not the merits of case law. Just because an appellate judge finds flaws in a lower court's decision does not necessary make them an activist. Appellate courts keep the lower courts in check. It's an important part of the process.

As far as the last part-- #1 Yes, absolutely--they like the power. #2 I would say they will intrude or NOT intrude as dictated by goal #1. Example: Back in 2000-2001 California was raped by Enron. There were many rolling blackouts before government stepped in and said you can't do business that way Kenny. Oh well, Karma caught up with Mr. Lay in Aspen of all places.

Today's Americans think Congress has the constitutional authority to do anything upon which they can get a majority vote. We think whether a particular measure is a good idea or bad idea should determine passage as opposed to whether that measure lies within the enumerated powers granted Congress by the Constitution. Unfortunately, for the future of our nation, Congress has successfully exploited American constitutional ignorance or contempt.